NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello Everyone,

I've just been skimming the U.N. Resolutions, keeping in mind the Taxation Ban (Res. 4), and the relative unsuccess of the attempts to repeal it.

I'm considering placing the following as a proposal, but I'm totally open to suggestions on phrasing, claraifcation of language, and just plain opinion on whether or not you'd vote for it.

This is similar to what the "real" U.N. does, though I've lowered the membership dues quite a bit and flattened them out to be fair to all.

So, here it goes:

IMPLEMENTATION OF UNITED NATIONS MEMBERSHIP DUES

KEEPING in the Spirit of United Nations Resolution 4, "U.N. Taxation Ban", and
UNDERSTANDING that the United Nations is an organization of voluntary members,

THAT the United Nations is not a government onto itself, but that United Nations has been charged with the execution of several committees and the implementation of several acts, such as:

Res. 25., The Child Protection Act
Res. 32., Global AIDS Initative
Res. 38., Rights of Labor Unions
Res. 45., Universal Copyright and Patent Law
Res. 50., United Nations Space Consortium
Res. 54., United Nations Educational Committee
Res. 55., The World Blood Bank
Res. 58., Spill Prevention Control and Counter-Measures
Res. 65., The Refugee Protection Act
Res. 70., The Whaling Ban
Res. 83., The Eon Convention on Genocide
Res. 84., The HIV/AIDS Act
Res. 90., Tsunami Warning System
Res. 96., World Organ Donor Centre
Res. 97., Universal Library Coalition
Res. 100., The Natural Disaster Act
Res. 110., United Nation Security Act
Res. 114., United Nations Water Cleansing Committee

(BEARING in mind that the list above is descriptive and not exhaustive),

REQUESTS, in order to enforce the resolutions above and resolutions in the future that the United Nations be allowed to collect dues from each member nation and in doing so,

LESIGLATES the following:

(1) That the United Nations be allowed to collect dues of membership once anually,

(2) That such dues cannot exceed one-fourth of one percent (or 0.25%) of the taxes collected by member nations annually,

(3) That such dues cannot be pro-rated so that member states with larger economies unecessarily carry the burden for the majority of membership dues,

(4) That member states have the right, instrinsic to them as nations, to NOT pay all or part of their membership dues, and that a member state need not provide a rationale for said unpayment,

and FURTHER,

(5) That the United Nations must divide said collected membership dues evenly amongst all the established committees and acts passed by the member states,

(6) That the United Nations must remit any fiscal surplus derived from membership dues in proportion to the amount of membership dues payed in by member nations, and

(7) Therefore, the United Nations cannot use any surplus to the particular advantage or disadvantage of any member state, and

(8) Requires that the United Nations annually display publicly to all nations its accounting process to insure transparency of collection of membership dues and their expenditure,

So that from the collection of membership dues, GURANTEES that the United Nations truly carry out the missions assigned to it by the member states.

Invalid under house-of-cards clause

Hello Everyone,

I've just been skimming the U.N. Resolutions, keeping in mind the Taxation Ban (Res. 4), and the relative unsuccess of the attempts to repeal it.

Resolution 4 does not ban forcing nations to fund the UN.

I'm considering placing the following as a proposal, but I'm totally open to suggestions on phrasing, claraifcation of language, and just plain opinion on whether or not you'd vote for it.

This is similar to what the "real" U.N. does, though I've lowered the membership dues quite a bit and flattened them out to be fair to all.

So, here it goes:

IMPLEMENTATION OF UNITED NATIONS MEMBERSHIP DUES

Category?

KEEPING in the Spirit of United Nations Resolution 4, "U.N. Taxation Ban", and
UNDERSTANDING that the United Nations is an organization of voluntary members,

Ooo.....borderline House of Cards rule. I think its fine without it.

THAT the United Nations is not a government onto itself, but that United Nations has been charged with the execution of several committees and the implementation of several acts, such as:

End at acts, the rest is just asking for a House of Cards deletion, not to mention half of them don't even require the UN to once spend a single cent beyond the printing of the paper (the funding required to maintain UNSA is just whatever the secretariat is paid to make sure people don't try to bypass it - and rumor has it that this is about equivelent to nothing)

(BEARING in mind that the list above is descriptive and not exhaustive),

REQUESTS, in order to enforce the resolutions above and resolutions in the future that the United Nations be allowed to collect dues from each member nation and in doing so,

LESIGLATES the following:

(1) That the United Nations be allowed to collect dues of membership once anually,

Alright. Unpopular, but alright

(2) That such dues cannot exceed one-fourth of one percent (or 0.25%) of the taxes collected by member nations annually,

Hmm, I'll have to recheck the numbers and wording stated on the two enviro resolutions that have defined numbers

(3) That such dues cannot be pro-rated so that member states with larger economies unecessarily carry the burden for the majority of membership dues,

Good

(4) That member states have the right, instrinsic to them as nations, to NOT pay all or part of their membership dues, and that a member state need not provide a rationale for said unpayment,

Heh, interesting

and FURTHER,

(5) That the United Nations must divide said collected membership dues evenly amongst all the established committees and acts passed by the member states,

DENIED. Some committees and acts require little money to fund. Case and point: UNSA requires nothing to fund. Several others are practically impossible to fund, and in many ways, you would be better off not funding them

(6) That the United Nations must remit any fiscal surplus derived from membership dues in proportion to the amount of membership dues payed in by member nations, and

(7) Therefore, the United Nations cannot use any surplus to the particular advantage or disadvantage of any member state, and

(8) Requires that the United Nations annually display publicly to all nations its accounting process to insure transparency of collection of membership dues and their expenditure,

Good

So that from the collection of membership dues, GURANTEES that the United Nations truly carry out the missions assigned to it by the member states.

*wonders how much it costs to pay all the gnomes their annual salary.

TBH, I'm more concerned about the funding needed to keep this building intact.

(4) That member states have the right, instrinsic to them as nations, to NOT pay all or part of their membership dues, and that a member state need not provide a rationale for said unpayment,A split inifinitive (highlighted), and a MetaGaming violation (forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465):


Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out... Also, House of Cards, and "GUARANTEES" is misspelled.

Wow. Great comments.

Now that I understand the "House of Cards" and "Optionality" rules, I've got a much better sense of what the proposal should read, and , more importantly, how it can be pared down. Lemme think for a bit about which category it could go under --- any suggestions? --- and I'll try to rephrase it accordingly.

Again, thanks for the great comments. Here's the first revision.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy

Resolution Name: United Nations Membership Dues Act

UNDERSTANDING that the United Nations is an organization of voluntary members,

AND that while the United Nations is not a government onto itself, it has been charged with the execution of committees and the implementation of acts,

REQUESTS, in order to enforce the resolutions passed by the member states, that the United Nations be authorized to collect dues from each member nation and in doing so,

LESIGLATES the following:

(1) That the United Nations be allowed to collect dues of membership once annually,

(2) That such dues will not exceed one-fourth of one percent (or 0.25%) of the taxes collected by member states annually,

(2a) That such dues will not be pro-rated so that member states with larger economies unnecessarily carry the burden for the majority of membership dues,

And FURTHER requiring,

(3) That the United Nations must remit any fiscal surplus derived from membership dues in proportion to the amount of membership dues payed in by member states, and

(7) Therefore, the United Nations cannot use any surplus to the particular advantage or disadvantage of any member state, and finally

(8) Requires that the United Nations annually display publicly to all nations its accounting process to insure transparency of collection of membership dues and their expenditure.

So that from the collection of membership dues, GURANTEES that the United Nations is truly capable to carry out the missions assigned to it by the member states.

Again, thanks for the great comments. Here's the first revision.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength?

Resolution Name: United Nations Membership Dues Act

UNDERSTANDING that the United Nations is an organization of voluntary members,

AND that while the United Nations is not a government onto itself, it has been charged with the execution of committees and the implementation of acts,

REQUESTS, in order to enforce the resolutions passed by the member states, that the United Nations be authorized to collect dues from each member nation and in doing so,

LESIGLATES the following:Misspelled word, should be LEGISLATES.

(1) That the United Nations be allowed to collect dues of membership once annually,

(2) That such dues will not exceed one-fourth of one percent (or 0.25%) of the taxes collected by member states annually,

(2a) That such dues will not be pro-rated so that member states with larger economies unnecessarily carry the burden for the majority of membership dues,

And FURTHER requiring,

(3) That the United Nations must remit any fiscal surplus derived from membership dues in proportion to the amount of membership dues payed in by member states, and

(7) Therefore, the United Nations cannot use any surplus to the particular advantage or disadvantage of any member state, and finallyWhat happened to 4, 5, and 6?

(8) Requires that the United Nations annually display publicly to all nations its accounting process to insure transparency of collection of membership dues and their expenditure.

So that from the collection of membership dues, GURANTEES that the United Nations is truly capable to carry out the missions assigned to it by the member states.Another misspelled word, it should be GUARANTEES.

Aside from Flibs comments, looks fine.

(2) That such dues will not exceed one-fourth of one percent (or 0.25%) of the taxes collected by member states annually...

Olwe's government doesn't steal from its citizens... how do you charge nations that don't have taxes?

Olwe's government doesn't steal from its citizens... how do you charge nations that don't have taxes?

I think the idea here is that the UN can only ask for so much $$$ in membership dues. If your nation doesn't collect taxes, then 0.25% of zero is still zero.

Olwe's government doesn't steal from its citizens... how do you charge nations that don't have taxes?

Correction, Olwe's government doesn't collect income taxes. If your government didn't collect any money from any taxes, then the people that operate the government wouldn't be paid - including yourself. As such, it is undoubted that you do collect some form of taxes. The only other way is that you put a premium on all services you supply to your citizens, which makes you questionably competitive with any corporation, or you collect income through the looting of other countries - but that would require you to spend a fair sized amount on military (plus, most nations in history that have relied on looting have generally economically collapsed after they've spent a few years looting....and then get stalled in their attempts to loot more nations - Napolean and Hitler are two excellent examples).

Most common form of taxes outside of income taxes are property taxes, sales tax, manufacturing tax, and tariffs. All of these "steal" (to use your term) from your citizens, though the visibility of them varies. For example, you will almost never notice a manufacturing tax (in fact, I'm certain there are a lot of manufacturing taxes on products you buy that you don't know). Sales tax could be visible depending on how you implement it (Australia: invisible, Canada, visible). Property taxes are visible. Tariffs are invisible if they imported by a company before reaching you.

Um......yeah.

Correction, Olwe's government doesn't collect income taxes.

I'm not entirely sure how the game computes taxes. I've been looking around, and my old belief is that the game primarily takes into account income taxes. But I could be wrong.

Nevertheless, I've taken all of your comments in mind, implemented (I think) allof them, and submitted the proposal to the queue. If you think the resolution is fair and want to encourage your regional delegate to vote on it, I'd much appreciate it. I'm not much of a vote-swapper myself, but if you've got any connections you'd like to use on my behalf, I'd be even more appreciative.

nseconomy.thirdgeek.net

I have yet to see a government with an operating budget of $0, and there's a lot of governments where the taxes are 0%, so you tell me where that money is coming from :)

When I first read the title of this thread, I automatically thought to myself "no, definetly not".

After reading the revised proposal however, my opinion did a total U-turn and I do approve of the idea. As written, it seems fair, balanced and will save future proposal writers wasting precious characters from their limit explaining how their ideas will be financed.

I will endorse this :).

If your government didn't collect any money from any taxes, then the people that operate the government wouldn't be paid - including yourself.

Yes, that's exactly the idea. There's no room for money in the phrase "civil servant". No government employees collect salaries in Olwe, although they are housed and fed adequately (I know you're going to say that denying them salaries is going to lead to increased corruption because they'll be more ready to accept bribes, but government officials who accept bribes are executed in Olwe -- since Olwe's standard form of execution consists of the executioner seeing how many bones he can break before the subject literally dies from pain, corruption's not that big a problem). As for the way we pay for government programs -- there are two extra Federal Mint buildings. They produce money that never touches the hand of any civilian on Olwe's soil -- it's purely for government use.

Now, since Olwe is a semi-feudal nation and follows a code of honor that includes collecting spoils of war, we do use looting to boost our economy if we defeat an enemy in battle. But, this is not a common practice by any means.

There are absolutely NO taxes on Olwe's citizens.

You mean pay to read the stuff that makes it through as a legal proposal? *thud <----- sound of Bahgums UN delegate falling of his chair laughing*

I was informed that a mod review was requested. Before that happens, read this:

This sort of thing has been discussed at MUCH greater length in United Nations Funding Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349725). Long before I became a mod, I got involved in Sophista's attempt to make a realistic economic model for the UN, and we really put some thought into it.

The thread is 224 posts long, and some of the best parts don't get rolling until midway through. Take a look at posts 75 and 141, for instance, for some real numbers on which to base your arguments. There is a huge bitchfest in the 40s-80s, much of which can be ignored ... but otherwise it's really a worthwhile read.

Ultimately Sophista and I decided that it had no chance of passage in any realistic form. Anytime you're specifying numbers, be it .25% of collected taxes or my suggestion of a miniscule percentage of GDP, it's techically a Game Mechanics issue. If you leave that out, it's just worthless jabber. Regardless of how you phrase it, nations will take a one-time hit, and the rest is just roleplay.

The NSUN really isn't set up for this sort of detail, more's the pity. Have a read, see if you can incorporate any of the better ideas, and maybe we'll be ready for a go at this again.

Frisbeeteria, former UN regular, now NS Game Moderator.

I was informed that a mod review was requested. Before that happens, read this:

This sort of thing has been discussed at MUCH greater length in United Nations Funding Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349725). Long before I became a mod, I got involved in Sophista's attempt to make a realistic economic model for the UN, and we really put some thought into it.

The thread is 224 posts long, and some of the best parts don't get rolling until midway through. Take a look at posts 75 and 141, for instance, for some real numbers on which to base your arguments. There is a huge bitchfest in the 40s-80s, much of which can be ignored ... but otherwise it's really a worthwhile read.

Ultimately Sophista and I decided that it had no chance of passage in any realistic form. Anytime you're specifying numbers, be it .25% of collected taxes or my suggestion of a miniscule percentage of GDP, it's techically a Game Mechanics issue. If you leave that out, it's just worthless jabber. Regardless of how you phrase it, nations will take a one-time hit, and the rest is just roleplay.

The NSUN really isn't set up for this sort of detail, more's the pity. Have a read, see if you can incorporate any of the better ideas, and maybe we'll be ready for a go at this again.

Frisbeeteria, former UN regular, now NS Game Moderator.

Ah...memories. I frequently lurked in that thread, but didn't bother posting my national sovereignty schtick (and saw no reason for helping to draft a proposal I would have to vehemently oppose). Most folks didn't have an iota of respect for the natsov argument then anyway, as some of the comments in that thread illustrated. It was...interesting...to see a replay of the beginning of bad relations between Mik and Vastiva, and to watch Sophista work his debate mojo. Too bad he didn't stick around. I would have enjoyed sparring with him on the natsov front later.

Hello Everyone,

Again, thanks for your comments. They've been very helpful!

I will take the moderators considerations in mind. The proposal was taken out of the queue earlier today, and I hope to revise it sufficently so that will it be able to meet its fate.

The thread is 224 posts long, and some of the best parts don't get rolling until midway through. Take a look at posts 75 and 141, for instance, for some real numbers on which to base your arguments. There is a huge bitchfest in the 40s-80s, much of which can be ignored ... but otherwise it's really a worthwhile read.

Ultimately Sophista and I decided that it had no chance of passage in any realistic form. Anytime you're specifying numbers, be it .25% of collected taxes or my suggestion of a miniscule percentage of GDP, it's techically a Game Mechanics issue. If you leave that out, it's just worthless jabber. Regardless of how you phrase it, nations will take a one-time hit, and the rest is just roleplay.


I've looked through the thread and most of it seems to center around the issue of whether to take it out of the GDP or out of taxes. My own preference would be taxes -- I'd have to do some calculus to figure out how the schema of NS evaluates tax rates with GDP -- but taxes seem fairer, though I assume they would fluctuate more than GDP. This way, nations that are struggling to keep their taxes close to zero will pay less, even if their GDP's remain stable or increase.

I know that sounds a tad unfair but a flat tax is a flat tax. I certainly don't want, and I don't think its feasible, to have a graduated rate adjusted to a nations GDP. If one nation gets one vote, then everyone should pay the same rate for their membership.

Hello All:

I've placed a slightly revised proposal in the queue. Hopefully the mods will agree that it's worthy of consideration.

Yes, that's exactly the idea.

Oh boy

There's no room for money in the phrase "civil servant". No government employees collect salaries in Olwe, although they are housed and fed adequately (I know you're going to say that denying them salaries is going to lead to increased corruption because they'll be more ready to accept bribes, but government officials who accept bribes are executed in Olwe -- since Olwe's standard form of execution consists of the executioner seeing how many bones he can break before the subject literally dies from pain, corruption's not that big a problem).

Actually, I'm not going to say that. I'm going to say you are in direct violation of two resolutions: End Slavery and End Barbaric Punishments.

As for the way we pay for government programs -- there are two extra Federal Mint buildings. They produce money that never touches the hand of any civilian on Olwe's soil -- it's purely for government use.

And a failure to understand economics to boot. The international value of Olwe's currency just hit zero because there is not actual value to a coin that came from zero wealth. You can't just mint a dollar and claim that it is worth something. There's a term for that, it's called forgery.

Now, since Olwe is a semi-feudal nation and follows a code of honor that includes collecting spoils of war, we do use looting to boost our economy if we defeat an enemy in battle. But, this is not a common practice by any means.

And who pays your soldiers? Or are they not paid as they are civil servants? Oh wait, that's right, every nation in history that has failed to pay its troops has....well.....had a revolt by those same troops.

There are absolutely NO taxes on Olwe's citizens.

You, sir, are godmodding.

Actually, let's get rid of the BS fast:

http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Olwe

Some informative points on this page:
Income Tax Rate: 100%
Economic Rating: Imploded

Gross Domestic Product: $297,138,446,776.73
Government Budget: $306,055,201,088.00

GDP Per Capita: $83.40
Unemployment Rate: 14.89%
Exchange Rate: 220.0996 Sickles = $1

I must apologize, you aren't godmodding, you're just plain lieing

Thirdgeek is not an official agency of NS. If Olwe wants to define his nation that way, he can. He may be guilty of poor economic theory, but he can define it that way. If nobody wants to play with him because of it, that's their choice.
I must apologize, you aren't godmodding, you're just plain lieing
And you're just flaming. Knock it off, NOW.

Hello All:

The Mods took the proposal off the queue last night, saying that we would need to repeal resolution #4. I'm not clear on the logic on that, and I'll need to look up the language for repealing a resolution that is probably impossible to repeal.

Thirdgeek is not an official agency of NS. If Olwe wants to define his nation that way, he can. He may be guilty of poor economic theory, but he can define it that way. If nobody wants to play with him because of it, that's their choice.

And you're just flaming. Knock it off, NOW.

How is telling someone they're lieing flaming? It's not an insult nor meant to be insulting (unless you read it as an insult, in which case I apologize but that wasn't the intent).

Also, I was under the impression that stating something that your nation's stats contradict is considered to be a form of godmodding. Am I to assume by your post this is not always the case?

Hello All:

I've written out a brief repeal to resolution #4 and placed it in the queue, though, the way things are going, it may get taken off by the mods.

If you're in support of the Membership Dues Act, I ask that you contact your regional delegate and ask them to support the repeal of resolution #4.

Also, I was under the impression that stating something that your nation's stats contradict is considered to be a form of godmodding. Am I to assume by your post this is not always the case?
There is at least one mod puppet nation, several years old, that has a total population of four individuals. That pretty clearly contradicts the stats, I'd say, but it's totally representative of the four Artificial Intelligences that he roleplays. You wanna call one of the more-respected roleplayers a godmodder and a liar over that? I don't.

Thirdgeek is an opinion based on what Commerce Heights thinks national statistics might be. Yes, there is a published tax rate on everyone's nation page, but I can assure you that ALL serious roleplayers ignore that unless convenient, just as they ignore the pro-nudity and lemonade stand issues.

Calling a nation a godmodder over a post you disagree with isn't prohibited, but calling the player a liar is most definitely flaming. Just because somebody doesn't play the way YOU do, does not make their play wrong. Keep that in mind.

Hello All:

The Mods took the proposal off the queue last night, saying that we would need to repeal resolution #4. I'm not clear on the logic on that, and I'll need to look up the language for repealing a resolution that is probably impossible to repeal.
OK, color me confused. I was under the impression that all the UN Taxation Ban did was prohibit the UN from directly taxing a nation's citizens, not the nations themselves. Could the mod who ruled this way explain their reasoning?

OK, color me confused. I was under the impression that all the UN Taxation Ban did was prohibit the UN from directly taxing a nation's citizens, not the nations themselves. Could the mod who ruled this way explain their reasoning?

That's exactly the reason why I'm confused. The language is rather specific in the ban, that the UN not directly tax individuals. Unfortunately, I do not know the moderator who took the proposal down -- they go unnamed when they send you a telegram, so there's -- to my knowledge -- no way of being able to converse with them (not to flame at them!) to more fully understand their rationale.

But that's a really different issue. For the time being, I ask those who read the thread to contact their regional delegate and at least pass the ban. I don't think there's any reason to be scared about what may come if the ban passes -- the UN is pretty moderate in actually letting taxing proposals get in the queue and their actually obtaining votes enough to pass.

I'm not the mod who took down your proposal for violating #4, but I *will* bring it (and this thread) to their attention.

Thanks Fris. :D

Thanks Fris. :D


Ditto, Fris!